Toward a Bioregional State

Launched to provide an information service connected with _Toward a Bioregional State, the book; the blog is the commentary, your questions and my answers, and news from around the world related to the issues of sustainability and unsustainability in a running muse on various issues of concern or inspiration.

American Founding Father Benjamin Rush wanted medical freedom as a basic human right in the U.S. Constitution, arguing that "Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . .[T]o restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic....The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom."

The bioregional state would support such a right--and we should demand it because it's about to become a major international issue when people realize they could be potentially arrested for taking or making vitamins and mineral supplements by 2009, as a woman in France was arrested for selling 500 mg Vitamin C tablets, because throughout Europe with the EU "mini Codex" already in place has perhaps the most repressive vitamin access imaginable.

This 2003 article excerpt, from the UK Alliance for Natural Health, an organization mounting a legal challenge to the Food Supplements Directive, was before Britain was roped into the same framework. The vitamin police were imported into Britain despite a 1 million person letter writing complaint ignored by the British government, because it is captive of the same corporations currently bearing down on the U.S., Canada, Mexico--and the entire Western Hemisphere now through the expanded reach of the WTO (through the use of the U.N.'s) Codex that makes the EU frameworks internationalized by 2009:

"ON 3rd JULY 2003, the European Food Supplements Directive was passed into English Law, which will, over the next few years, effectively ban around 5000 discrete products currently legal to sell in health food shops and pharmacies. This Directive has been devised and pushed forward by the unelected EU bureaucrats in order to "harmonize" the selling of health supplements throughout the EU, and was railroaded through the British Parliament by the Blair Government despite being rejected by the House of Lords. The way that the Government passed it was outrageous: just before the vote by the Standing Committee in the House of Commons, five Labour MPs who were going to vote against it were replaced by more obedient MPs. Even then, this directive was only passed by 8 votes to 6!

"So it seems that the European Parliament and the present UK Government are determined to pass the Food Supplements Directive despite the will of the people and even of MPs themselves. Why? Because it is the will of the EU Parliament which is very strongly influenced by the massive pharmaceutical companies in Europe. They are the only ones that will financially gain from the destruction of the health supplement industry. After all, people who take responsibility for their own health by taking supplements need less drugs because they are healthier.

"It is ironic that the Malnutrition Advisory Group has recently released a report showing that about 2 million people in the UK(!), including 60% of hospital patients, are not getting adequate nutrition and they admit that this is severally affecting their health and ability to heal. Of course, they don't mention supplements because they are still under the false and dangerous impression that this fictitious thing called a "well-balanced diet" exists that can adequately supply all the nutrients that the body needs. Of course, there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support this; in fact, the research actually indicates that modern food production and processing techniques, cooking methods and pollution levels guarantee that it is well-nigh impossible for anyone to get the nutrients they need for optimum health on a "well-balanced diet". (And if you can't get optimum nutrition using ingredients from the supermarket, how on earth are you going to find it in a disgusting NHS hospital slop canteen!) Given this terrible state of modern nutrition, it is astonishing that our governments are trying to move legislation towards a vastly reduced availability of nutritional supplements. What is going on?

"Many of us have been protesting about these proposals for the past five years, writing letters to our MPs and MEPs, signing million signature petitions and even marching on Parliament here in London. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a democracy where the will of the people is the driving factor of legislation. The EU Parliament is not interested in personal freedom, or even personal health… only control and more control. And they have tried to justify this assault on our rights to take supplements on the grounds of our safety, even though health supplements have a safety record second to none — see LaLeva's Safety of Dietary Supplements and Comparative Safety Graph. And given their incredible safety, it is rather odd that the tabloid newspapers have been running sensational headlines over the past few years on the dangers of nutritional supplements. (I wonder who is behind those media campaigns?)

"Already, the supplement market in Germany and Norway are severely controlled, and it is illegal, for example, to buy Vitamin C over 200mg in strength because it is considered by Brussels to be unnecessary, although of course, it is very necessary for the population to continue to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are very healthy for governments' bank accounts. I have just heard (10/3/04) from a very reliable source that a woman has been arrested in France for selling 500mg tablets of Vitamin C because in that country doses of that strength are now considered medicinal! (There is absolutely no safety issue with Vitamin C and you can freely buy 1000mg tablets here in the UK and US at the moment… I take 3 a day.) Soon, these sorts of controls will be pan-European, and you will only be able to buy from a small and bland list of ineffective, inorganic supplements and in doses that the EU diktat considers appropriate. Many innovative products and companies will simply disappear, and it will become much harder for each of us to take responsibility for our health."

And so the WTO's Codex would 'harmonize' disharmoniously with current U.S., Canadian, and many other countries in the Western Hemisphere's more locally representative laws that benefit the consumer health freedom access to vitamins and minerals--forcing all countries internationally involved in the WTO to remove their pro-consumer and health freedom access legislation, like the EU.

Below are links to two interesting short documentaries about the current invasive, consumer repressive despotism of Codex Alimentarius, supposedly to be institutionalized across multiple nations by 2009. If despotism is defined as:

1. the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.2. absolute power or control; tyranny.3. an absolute or autocratic government.4. a country ruled by a despot.

--then the Codex Alimentarius is a global despotism in its current form.

Starting innocuously enough in the early 1960s as a pro-consumer U.N. protocol for standards to assure healthy and nutritious foods for developing countries by establishing international baselines for health standards, it has instead by the 1990s been corporatized into international prohibition and sales standards. The touchy point is its ongoing attempt, by 2009 it is said, to outlaw certain health products internationally used as natural alternatives to expensive (and barely serviceable--because it kills approximately 750,000 a year in the United States) hospital medicine. The Codex presumes to outlaw the body's natural building blocks--vitamins and minerals--a far cry from setting 'health standards.'

The current iterations of the Codex are a complete turnaround from its conception purpose, of encouraging health standard baselines, which have been twisted into an enforcement arm granting itself the power internationally to license and ban commodities.

Night of the Living Dead Vitamin Police

The Codex has turned into the "night of the living vitamin police" once more, because these policies were soundly trounced by citizen activism over a decade ago, and here they come to eerie life from the grave through the World Trade Organization, to shore up private monopolies of more expensive health treatments from competition with cheaper and unpatentable vitamins and minerals that are a gift of nature and the very way our bodies work.

One documentary gets into the guilty secret of how this 'consumptive heresthetics' works, mentioning it is very reminiscent of when the FDA simultaneously outlawed 'free' and naturally occurring L-tryptophan amino acid as a supplement (widely used as a nutritional treatment against depression) effectively criminalizing the human body's own neurotransmitters! This was in order to force sales of risky and dangerous Prozac recently introduced as a 'corporate substitute' to tryptophan based neurotransmitter deficiency issues. Obviously, the human body instead of the corporations knew best: later of course Prozac was withdrawn in Europe after multiple tens of thousands of deaths and suicides--though L-tryptophan still is kept from being a supplement in the U.S., and still in the U.S. Prozac is there.

Prozac is made by Eli Lilly, whom George H. W. Bush has been associated with for most of his life on the board of Directors. So while it was banned in Europe due to these suicidal tendencies being expanded, in the U.S. Ely Lilly corruptly saw that it was kept in circulation:

Prozac, called fluoxetine by generic name, is a psychiatric drug prescribed to over 50 million people including millions of children. The drug was linked to increased suicides and violence as early as 1988, in a recently emerged document. Apparently the evaluation was known to Prozac's maker Eli Lilly as early as the 'eighties, but was never even given to the FDA.

This is the preoccupying picture that emerged just days ago, as the British Medical Journal passed on documents to the FDA which it had received by an anonymous whistleblower.

Can such a "head in the sand" policy be characterized as merely overzealous business practice, or is it an indication of something much more devastating? Eli Lilly is one of the multinational drug companies that have developed the "Texas Medication Algorithm Project", which is part of George Bush II's sweeping program to test kids at school as well as pregnant mothers for "psychiatric disorders". Prozac is one of the drugs that are to be given to kids who don't meet the evaluating personnel's standards of "normal" behaviour.

Eli Lilly is right where the important decisions are made. In July 2001, Gerald Radke, a former marketing director for Eli Lilly, became Deputy Director of Pennsylvania's Department of Public Welfare’s Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Rathke, who is one of the major proponents of the universal testing and medication program, had previously been "on loan" to head a mental health advocacy group, NAMI or National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which is funded by ... Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical manufacturers.

When recently, antidepressant drugs received FDA mandated warning labels, Prozac wasn't on the list and indeed, in Europe the drug has been called "safe for children" for years. Recently, the whole FDA approval procedure for drugs has been questioned as being too industry friendly, and apparently with good reason. After recent revelations of heart attack risk for the users of several "new generation" painkillers - Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex and others, the FDA's policy of sustaining the profits of pharmaceutical industry, in sharp contrast with its official mission of protecting patients from dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, has been publicly questioned.

Not only the drug approval process seems to be slanted in favor of industry. Even the food supply has been compromised with products such as artificial sweeteners and genetically modified plants, animals and bacteria that are by no means innocuous. While aspartame for instance has brought great profits to the industry, the FDA plain refuses to look at the numerous adverse reaction reports. FDA field agents are reported to block people from even reporting events, because "aspartame could not cause such a reaction".

The same is true for cholesterol lowering statin drugs, where apparently frequent reports of muscle pains, memory loss and other side effects just don't seem to make it into the FDA's system, despite being fairly widespread. The pains associated with statin drug use may even have led to the overuse of painkillers - those recently found to cause an increase of heart attacks.

Meanwhile, the FDA is complaining that it does not have sufficient means to control dangerous food supplements and is promoting stringent legislation on those nutrient rich products.

What has the world come to?

- - -

Journal hands over Prozac papers

(original on BBC news)

Confidential papers on anti-depressant drug Prozac that went missing during a murder case have been handed to the US drug regulator by a UK medical journal.

The documents, belonging to Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac, included details of clinical trials of the drug, the British Medical Journal said.

The documents reportedly went missing after the relatives of the victims of Joseph Wesbecker started legal action.

Mr Wesbecker, who was on Prozac, shot eight people dead in 1989 in the US.

Another 12 people were injured during the shooting spree at a printing plant in Louisville, Kentucky.

Data

The 47-year-old then shot himself.

In 1994, the relatives brought a civil case against Eli Lilly.

The company subsequently won the case but was later forced to admit that it had made a secret settlement with the plaintiffs during the trial, which meant that the verdict was invalid, the BMJ reported.

Dr Richard Kalpit, the clinical reviewer at the US Food and Drug Administration, the US drugs regulator, who approved the drug, told the BMJ he was not given the data included in the documents.

"These data are very important. If this report was done by Lilly or for Lilly, it was their responsibility to report it to us and to publish it."

Recent research has suggested children who use Prozac are at greater risk of suicide...

...

Britain set for clash with Europe over ban on Prozac for under-18s

Europe's drugs watchdog has banned Prozac and other modern antidepressants for under-18s because of safety fears, putting it on a collision course with Britain's drugs regulator. Antidepressants increase suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among children and adolescents, and should not be used to treat depression, the scientific panel of the European Medicines Agency (Emea) said. Including Prozac in the ban clashes with the stance taken by Britain's drugs regulator 16 months ago. Prozac is the only antidepressant that doctors can prescribe to children in Britain, following a safety review in 2003.

FDA accused of suppressing drug safety information

Here's a report on the FDA that could only come from outside the United States. I'm reading to you from The Independent, a British newspaper, that says, "Vital data on prescription medication found in millions of British homes has been suppressed by the powerful U.S. drug regulators, even though the information could potentially save lives." An investigation by The Independent states that, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, the American Food and Drug Administration routinely conceals information it considers commercially sensitive, leaving medical specialists unable to assess the true risks.

...

Here is a comment on the matter of SSRI antidepressants from a recent communication of the ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)

Dr. Graham notes that the FDAs proposed new label for SSRI antidepressants cites a "suicidality" rate of one to two percent, but a senior FDA official acknowledged in September that that number was based upon drug trials that "failed to capture most of the reactions of suicidality." But, he points out, the finding in an alternative trial, Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS)--"the actual rate was somewhere around seven or eight percent," which, as he says, is an incredibly substantive difference from the proposed FDA numbers in the warning label.

Indeed, in the TADS experiment, there were 7 suicide attempts--6 in the Prozac group, one in the placebo group. The rate for adverse events involving deliberate harm (to self or others) in children in the Prozac group was 12%,additionally suicide-related events in the Prozac group reached 8.26%. More than twice the rate in the placebo group: 5.36% and 3.57% respectively. [1]

Evidence of the hazards of Prozac and the other SSRI antidepressants that had been hidden for decades - or deliberately miscoded - is coming to light: the hazards include severe withdrawal symptoms - which is evidence of drug dependency; mania; violence; suicide; and cardiac abnormalities. Additionally, children prescribed an SSRI are at risk of decreased growth and an unusual high incidence of conversion from drug-induced mania to manic-depression (bipolar) - previously a rare diagnosis in children.

All of these hazards continue to be downplayed by the FDA and leading psychopharmacologists who have considerable (mostly undisclosed) financial stakes in the pharmaceutical industry. Most of the experts usually cited in the press have tested the drugs in clinical trials but failed to disclose in published reports the negative findings, hazardous - even lethal - adverse events that occurred in the trials. Company officials and psychiatrists from prestigious medical institutions - who are paid consultants or recipients of grants from drug manufacturers - have tainted the scientific literature. They have misled prescribing physicians with reassuring, but unsupportable claims that the drugs were safe and effective when the drugs have failed to demonstrate a clinically significant benefit, but posed clinically significant risks of harm:

When questioned by about the TADS findings by Psychiatric News, Dr. Graham Emslie, one of the lead investigators of the trial acknowledged: "Patients receiving fluoxetine alone had the highest risk of experiencing a harm-related event, compared with those receiving placebo. [2]

As discussed in earlier entries, letting corruptible large scale national organizations adjudicate risk for multiple local publics is innately a flawed method of crafting risk regulations. And a corrupt FDA (and EPA) really depend entirely upon corporate honesty in testing, of which there is little being manufactured, so the public FDA/EPA actually does little if any independent testing. Their federal budgets are for reviewing corporate spoonfed data tests, which have been shown to be completely fraudulent 'spoof research' sometimes. This centralization of material risk adjudication nationally (or in the Codex internationally) leads to a process divorced from local consumer geographic risk experiences, and instead, full of international corporate risk producing politics attempting to protect themselves.

The Codex is just one example of this. The current process of material risk adjudication is broken because the scale of who adjudicates consumer risk properly is at the local geographic level, instead of the national level, much less the international WTO. In the current frameworks of risk adjudication, systemic health risks are about all that is institutionalized and underwritten by political cronies making fast with public health. The ongoing 'sweet misery' of aspartame poisoning, courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld, is proof enough for this over and over. The L-tryptophan outlawing, simultaneous with the hocking of Prozac without true testing, is another example of high level corruption. The ongoing stalling due to conflicts of interest in the the vaccine connected autism epidemic is another 'sick' example, no pun intended.

Current versions of the Codex are adamantly even more repressive, anti-consumer, and anti-health rights ironically because the consumer already won the battle. The consumers in the United States and elsewhere made their voice known by the 1990s on the issue. They want to have legal protections for right of access to cheap health care alternatives, via vitamin/mineral supplements. Sparked by their attempt to remove these health choices, allopathic medical-drug corporations found a 'health freedom' movement of consumers on their hands--and health freedom is something the United States has never had for 100 or more years due to the consolidation and winnowing of medical practice through the influence of the Rockefeller foundations.

The Codex documentaries show by the early 1990s, this sudden health freedom movement underway in the United States successfully stopped a 'mini' version of "the vitamin police" being created. Legality of having vitamins and mineral supplements was secured via a huge consumer/producer outcry.

However, the documentaries go on to show that the same losing drug corporations--still busy poisoning us with forced limited choices and poorly tested 'rubberstamped' safety labels--are the same ones working on the international level to force their policies from the outside in, now. They are attempting to get around massive public outcry by foisting the same policies that lost through a pro-corporate treaty framework.

Even though the "vitamin police" was rejected on a national level, it is currently attempting to come back from the dead on an international level through the WTO.

Bodily Integrity vs. Codex Alimentarius

Codex Alimentarius's current versions, in terms of the bioregional state, cross the 'bodily integrity' line "that government shall not pass." The fuller quote of bioregional state principles, from Toward a Bioregional State'sEcological Bill of Rights, says in part:

"Attempts of some to pressure government to enforce certain moralities to regulate internal bodily issues are forms of bodily tyranny that break the skin barrier that government shall not pass. The Constitution of Sustainability shall assure bodily integrity through upholding bodily rights, instead of demoting them."

The bioregional state is of course is pro-consumer rights, and pro-local risk adjudication since most risk is experienced geographically particularly in pollution issues. The Codex Alimentarius in its current versions is anti-consumer rights and completely uninterested that multiple local geographies have already made their statement that they wanted access to health alternatives that are innately part of their own bodies (supplements). Thus the Codex's present twisted framework is a profoundly anti-consumer, anti-health care treaty beholden to corporate interests attempting to criminalize cheap and less risky forms of medicinal choices and practices in vitamins and mineral supplements.

According to data collected by the USDA, non-organic vegetables have fewer vitamins and minerals than they did 50 years ago. On an overall scale of all produce tested, protein has declined by six percent, iron has declined 15 percent, vitamin C has dropped 20 percent, and riboflavin has fallen by 38 percent. An analysis of the nutritional drops was published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition and suggests the loss is due to the increased cultivation of crops that were bred for high growth and production and not for nutritional value.

So, when you intentionally breed for more quantity, quality and even nutritional content has suffered. Mix this with soil demineralization, the very building blocks of plant growth and quality, then mineral and vitamin supplements are probably required simply because they help people keep up with what has been steadily eroded from their increasingly industrialized food materials. Food has internally changed in quality and content over much of the industrialized agricultural world, despite maintaining an innocuously unchanged look. This is why the organic sector is booming--while major industrial agricultural food corporations want to avoid selling pro-consumer items:

Codex frameworks attempting to "pull an FDA" and pressure supply-side forced sales by attempting to stop health freedom choices would be categorically disallowed within the bioregional state. It is the watershed first that has primary jurisdiction exclusively on material risk politics in the bioregional state, instead of the federal and state governments. Local geographical risk adjudication is one of its main principles. This is widely seen already in practice--in different local counties deciding on their own to ban GMOs, or in different states wanting to ban Monsanto's risky cancer causing and life shortening (for cattle) rBGH growth hormone for bilking out more milk production, for instance.

In the bioregional state's Ecological Bill of Rights:

Article 29

Section 1.

The Constitution of Sustainability shall support bodily integrity of all citizens and species. There are bodily rights beyond which all government shall keep from challenging and instead shall maintain them, running the gamut from environmental pollution issues that impinge on bodily integrity, to food issues, to commodity monitoring, to surveillance, and to abortion. The Constitution of Sustainability is based on bodily rights and bodily integrity assured through these rights. Government is limited to a social operation regulating only spaces and activities between individuals for sustainability and for human rights instead of regulating or having any jurisdiction on internal bodily activities or personal decisions about one's own body. Attempts of some to pressure government to enforce certain moralities to regulate internal bodily issues are forms of bodily tyranny that break the skin barrier that government shall not pass. The Constitution of Sustainability shall assure bodily integrity through upholding bodily rights, instead of demoting them.

...

Section 6.

Citizens have the right to unadulterated, healthful, organic foods. Citizens have the right to unadulterated environment, air, water, and earth.

Add to that citizens have the right to unadulterated, healthful vitamins and minerals supplements--because they are innately parts of our own bodily integrity, and to attempt to outlaw them (like the FDA outlawed our very own neurotransmitters, in their tryptophan origins!) is hubris and despotism.

International award-winning filmmaker Kevin P. Miller of Well TV announced the release of a new documentary about the threat to medical freedom of choice. 'We Become Silent: The Last Days of Health Freedom' details the ongoing attempts by multinational pharmaceutical interests and giant food companies--in concert with the WTO, the WHO and others--to limit the public’s access to herbs, vitamins and other therapies. 'We Become Silent’ is narrated by Dame Judi Dench, the noted UK actress who has won multiple Golden Globe awards, an Oscar, and a Tony for her on-stage work, in addition to dozens of other honors throughout her prestigious career.

The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition. Ratified by the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the United States in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater. This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow, MD, available on DVD from the Natural Solutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stop Codex Alimentarius from taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health.

Conclusion: HARMonization

Benjamin Rush was very prescient. What we are facing worldwide in the Codex is an "undercover dictatorship. . .to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, [which] will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science."

And who are the major players pressing for this--those corporations descended from Nazi Germany's I.G. Farben. (With a caveat that it has some religious tangential information and interpretation, all this is well cited history at this book.)

And what do the WHO (World Health Organization, so called) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) expect to come of the implementation of their Codex Alimentarius outlawing of vitamins and mineral supplements, forced irradiation of all crops, reintroduction of a handful of already banned (for health reasons) terrible persistent organic chemical toxins?

Add that this "one class of men", unelected and seemingly set on killing billions of people ("hey we just report it folks, it's documented") further want to restrict medical practice to one class of health commodities--that they alone sell, while they outlaw all others--and you have it. The suspicious mass death of microbiologists globally over the past several years probably has something to do with this 'sick' 2009 timetable as well.

And it all comes about so far because of the lack of rights formally established for health freedom choice. A proactive solution would be to adopt the abovementioned "Article 29" nationally--or internationally--if you want a standard that is pro-consumer.

A more proactive solution would be a political revolution: to completely destroy the supply-side biased WTO framework, Codex Alimentarius, and all frameworks of "HARMonization"--for something that is an international support for consumer rights and health freedom choices and something like the bioregional state.

Dr. Laibow and her team of Constitutional lawyers have poured over the WTO-UN Codex rules for adoptions as well as the standards themselves, and found its weaknesses. The major weakness she discusses is that most countries assume that "adopting Codex" means adopting the WTO-UN Codex standards. However, even by Codex, this is false. All it means to be 'Codex compliant' is that the country in question at least address in their own way all of the issues mentioned in Codex--instead of requiring forcible adoption of the Codex standards themselves. This means that a pro-consumer (or even pro bioregional economic support) Codex framework can be passed. As Dr. Laibow says, she has some of these pro-consumer Codexes available, just pass them to your legislators:

"What we have done is created the first--of many--alternative [pro-consumer, pro-health freedom] Codex. You can go to our website www.healthfreedomUSA.org, and you will see a little button on the upper right-hand side that says SIGN THE CITIZEN'S PETITION....It is a legal challenge to the United States government on Codex. It's called a "Citizen's Petition" [legally]. It's a legal challenge; we're suing the United States Government, saying 'what you're doing is illegal, folks. Let us tell you how: we want hearings of fact, we want redress, we want correction.' If we get what we want, that's dandy. If we don't get what we want, we have gone through a process called "exhausting administrative remedies." We have made the case ripe for court....So I need you and everybody you know to sign the Citizen's Petition....The revised vitamin and minerals supplement is part of it, part of the lawsuit, saying THIS needs to be U.S. policy. The more voices saying "This is what I want."...the more voices, the more weight. So step #1 is read and sign the Citizen's Petition. Step #2 is disseminate the information, tell everybody you know, put it in your office, get your patients, your friends, your neighbors, your suppliers, to sign the Citizen's Petition....What we've done is turn it into a guideline that MANDATES biochemically, individually determined optimal health. And it's still Codex compliant! So now we need the U.S. to adopt it, and now we need other countries to adopt it."

Do it. You can additionally contact the U.S. Congress directly from there as well, and at this multiplier in the minds of legislators:

Otherwise through "HARMonization," as Dr. Laibow has eloquently if frighteningly described the importance of stressing those first four letters of that Orwellian word, the Codex is a planned out death sentence for 3 billion, according to the U.N.'s WHO and FAO expectations. The WHO and FAO are the organizers of the Codex Alimentarius frameworks.

Contact what's left of your legislators and explain the issues, and why it is important to stop it, and why its fine to stop it: because the Bush-Clinton pressured 'fast track' of the WTO is legally "not a treaty" in U.S. Constitutional law. So, WTO frameworks do not require any legal compliance and may be broken with equanimity. (Or, alternative addressing methods are available from her team). Dr. Laibow can tell you more about that, or read an excellent discussion of the invention of 'fast track authority' (sic) and its ongoing ripple effects when used which have led up to the equally illegal North American Union project, 'ratified' by a simple press conference by Bush? That's illegal as well. From that link's introduction:

"The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly against this end-run around national sovereignty. To answer Lou Dobbs, "No, the political elites have not gone mad", they just want you to think that they have. The reality over appearance is easily cleared up with a proper historical perspective of the last 35 years of political and economic manipulation by the same elite who now bring us the NAU. This paper will explore this history in order to give the reader a complete picture of the NAU, how it is made possible, who are the instigators of it, and where it is headed."

These are figments of reality--assumptions that the U.S. is legally in the WTO (from 1994, supposedly) or the figment that the NAU (by 2007, supposedly) can be 'passed' by a press conference? However, there are powerful interests out there that want to pretend they have gone through the Constitutional hoops and over the Constitutional hurdles to destroy democratic common law societies ("everything is permitted unless banned") and replace them with dictatorial Prussian civil code based societies ("everything is banned unless permitted") like the unelected WTO. (Dr. Laibow brings up the interesting point that the term and concept of a "Codex Alimentarius" is from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire). However, in the U.S. at least, common law and Constitutional hoops have never been leaped through--only bypassed. Hurdles have never been jumped--only skipped. Contact someone today with this information. Your life probably does really depend upon it, come 2009.

=================================

APPENDIX

These additional films are for those who want to know more about the history of the proto-EU, the EEC (European Economic Community) starting in 1972--or did it? The Nazi Third Reich had in addition to a military conquest agenda, an economic conquest. There was an attempt, little discussed in the history books, of the Nazis institutionalizing over their conquered countries something that directly translates into English as the "European Economic Community".

Most see the European Union of today as an inefficient conglomeration of states run by self-serving career politicians anxious to guarantee their survival by safely nesting in the EU's cocoon of endless bureaucracies. Many don't really see a threat at the moment. They believe that an integrated Europe makes sense; that it would prevent any chance of a third European war; that it is the modern, forward-thinking way to go.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH

The European Economic Community (EEC) began as a free-trade agreement in 1972. Today's European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military, one police force - even its own national anthem.

In this shocking new documentary featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream media has refused to confront.

2.

On the soft sell of "...[T]hat it would prevent any chance of a third European world war"?

Wait a minute. What if WWI and WWII were contrived in many ways to force the same consolidation policies, back then? I pass this next video on because it is throughly scholarly, and you can look up what he cites. Despite occasional and rare religious tone which has nothing to do with why I post this (as well as it's nothing really to do with the 'secular' historical information he imparts), you will gain a quick insight into an Anglo-American steered global consolidation movement from the late 1800s, and its personnel involved in all of this to the present day. If the Phillip Day film above is a political introduction to the present era, post WWII and a review of the public political issues of the EEC and EU, this film is the parapolitical version of the above--the people and interests who helped to organize such consolidation--which has included arranging wars for their goals. And this larger story started around WWI instead of WWII.

Dr. Stanley Monteith [speaking in 1997, introduced as a "retired orthopedic surgeon, researcher, historian, author, lecturer, and talk show host."] It is impossible to understand the unfolding of world events without the information contained in this video. What was the origin of the Council on Foreign Relations, and what is its relationship to Freemasonry, Theosophy, Socialism and Communism? This video is felt by many researchers to be the best single source of information on the movements working to create a New World Order. No researcher, or seeker for the truth should be without a copy of this highly acclaimed presentation [which discusses the networks involved, who actually wrote about their participation in a conspiracy to dominate the world; and a discussion of where Bill Clinton's mentor, George Washington University's Carroll Quigley, got the inside information about it in his book Tragedy and Hope, concerning this Anglo-American financial and corporate elite plot to take over the world. Monteith claims to have researched Quigley's life and networks for 30 years attempting to answer this question, and discusses the summary of this lifetime of research in this film.]

3.

I would additionally recommend this film, for those interested in health freedom and the ongoing repressive politics against free nutritional therapies in the United States.

G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease--like scurvy or pellagra--aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile. This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle. Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics--and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment.

With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out over night. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.

I would additionally recommend investigative journalist Phillip Day's book on nutritional health research hidden from the public, Health Wars

Bioregional democracy (or the Bioregional State) is a set of electoral reforms and commodity reforms designed to force the political process in a democracy to better represent concerns about the economy, the body, and environmental concerns (e.g. water quality), toward developmental paths that are locally prioritized and tailored to different areas for their own specific interests of sustainability and durability. This movement is variously called bioregional democracy, watershed cooperation, or bioregional representation, or one of various other similar names--all of which denote democratic control of a natural commons and local jurisdictional dominance in any economic developmental path decisions—while not removing more generalized civil rights protections of a larger national state.

=================================

Update, July 2, 2008

Dr. Rima E. Laibow, Trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation and Public Observer at the Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code) reports Health Freedom developments at the Codex Commission meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on June 30, 2008 - Part One of Report #1:

Dr. Rima E. Laibow, Trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation and Public Observer at the Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code) reports Health Freedom developments at the Codex Commission meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on June 30, 2008 - Part Two of Report #1:

About Me

A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.